…and here we have the real motivation behind the siren voices of the AGW alarmists; pure handwringing self loathing. Bitterness at failure to succeed in our free world, combined with lack of will to survive in it.

The great irony is that it is BIG OIL who have most to gain from AGW alarmism. The panel of the IPCC is dominated by BIG OIL. What makes me laugh is how the dissidents get smeared by association, when the whole thing is bankrolled by the oil giants.

Do you not remember how before the GW panic we had the “millenium bug” panic, “nuclear armageddon” panic, then “running out of oil” panic? Havent you noticed that oil reserves are now predicted to run well into the future? Not because of discoveries of major new “gushers” of the type found in Texas & the Magic Kingdom of S.A., but through use of EOR (enhanced oil recovery) techniques which use, wait for it…

CARBON DIOXIDE GAS!

I am a big believer in using AGW as a “Noble Lie” in order to wean us off Arab oil, which I see as an essential component of the W.O.T. (which we are still winning), but I just cannot bear the idiocy of those among us who use it as a rallying cry for the end of their own existence.

Sequestration techniques & cheap CO2 supplies are essential to continued oil supplies – as evidenced by OPEC’s threats to cut production if the decadent west continues to work on alternative energy technologies. It will be our liberation from the blathering socialist despots & the “Gott Mitt Uns” paleofascists of the world.

When I say “Noble Lie”, I do not mean that I think that there is no truth in AGW; it may indeed be true. I dont believe the Hockey-Stick-Tipping-Point-End-Of-The-World-Hell-And-High-Water stuff. I’m not even saying that BIG OIL created the myth, merely that their relative silence creates the space for the carefully sown seeds of this nonsense to flourish. If they put the megabuck PR wheels in motion against, AGW would have been off the menu years ago.

I am in favour of treading lightly, keeping our planet tidy. I have doubts about the environmental impact of this technology, but we will solve the problems as they arise, proving again that capitalist industry in democratic society, owned by hard working, honest, responsible people works progressively in an imperfect world towards improving our lives and security.

Jim you present no facts. Some opinions which seem to give rise to your need to provoke.

I agree with an earlier post that our consumption is really the problem. We consume energy at ever increasing rates that make almost any “solution” non-sustainable. Nuclear energy is a a commitment to 25,000 years of toxic waste and prolonged security risks and astronomical costs – and at best it would produce a tiny fraction of the energy required to keep pace with our pathologically induced consumptive habits.

We define the problem too narrowly when we frame it strictly around global warming. Yes, it is a problem, and perhaps it will provide the impetus for action. But if the actions are to be truly effective then we need to understand the array of humanly designed systems which interact with one another – social/culture, political, and economic to mention three critical human design (and thus changeable) and integrated sub-systems.

The solution is a combination of societal changes, re-channeling our economics around a comprehensive set of indexes that make consumption a relatively small part of the economic metric; and a mix of renewable energy sources and intermediate technologies aligned to what we know allows human existence to continue. We need, as is so frequently the case, to debunk myths and understand root causes and the dynamics of our ever changing ability to conceptualize, understand and apply sustainable solutions. For too long we have bought into Western notion of endless “progress” through growth and hence consumption. Like so many things, we come to believe that this is not a human designed system, but that it is somehow devined. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The politics of war and peace, the complexities of understanding tribal and regional conflicts, and specially nuclear war are all of a piece with the environment. The engines that fuel our destructive actions (Think: global preditory capitalism, an economics of needless consumption for starts) should be the focus of our efforts to resolve our systemic problem.

– Sunil Sharma
Dissident Voice Editor and Publisher

He called you a troll, so what? Brush it off. This is a controversial subject, expect defensive reactions.

Bring out your guns big boy, there is more information on this site than you have probably read in your lifetime. I’m amazed the owner of this site lets you post. You and zip! J.C. Cheers :-)

Oh, and if you really believe this isn’t an ideological issue… well, I guess I’ll just encourage you to look again.

” I can’t imagine that having to breathe and ingest waste gases from burning fossil fuels in clogged streets ”

A good point would be that new studies have concluded that ethanol is in fact more harmful to humans in urban settings than normal gas, dur to increased ozone which does not rise and dissipate as readily. Thus a “solution” to global warming harms human health on top of starving the non-chosen.

Analysis: Why Whitman wants nuclear power
By BEN LANDO

WASHINGTON, April 30 (UPI) — Former New Jersey governor and federal environmental chief Christine Todd Whitman is heading one of a growing number of coalitions urging the United States to keep — and increase — nuclear energy as part of its energy mix. She’s touring the country with the new mantra that nuclear power is safer and more efficient than ever before — and, thanks to federal subsidies and potential climate-change legislation, economically competitive.
“It’s 20 percent of our energy now and I think we ought to make sure it stays at least at 20 percent if not 25,” Whitman said during an interview with United Press International.

“It’s not going to be the answer for everything and the be-all-end-all only form of power,” she said. “But if you care about climate change and you care about air quality, nuclear power is really the only form of base power that doesn’t produce some of the regulated emissions and doesn’t contribute to global climate change.”

Fossil fuels are burned to mine, process and transport uranium to the plants. But they are also burned to build and dismantle plants, thus sending such emissions into the atmosphere. Opponents would rather see renewable energy and energy conservation become a bigger part of U.S. consumer culture, fearing the repercussions of a nuclear accident or an attack on a nuclear plant.

Whitman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator from 2001 to 2003 after serving seven years as New Jersey governor, is now co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, CASEnergy. The organization, also co-chaired by activist-turned-capitalist Patrick Moore — co-founder and ex-member of Greenpeace — has launched a public relations and education blitz to convince the nation “how nuclear power can contribute to America’s energy security and economic growth,” according to its Web site.

The goal, Whitman said, is “getting people to start to talk about this and think about this … try to build the public support for this kind of power.”

A UPI/Zogby Interactive poll taken in January found the support is there: 62.7 percent polled said it was safe and 61.8 percent said more nuclear plants should be built — though only 63.1 percent of those supporters want a reactor in their community. The poll of 6,909 U.S. adults had a margin of error of 1.2 percentage points.

There are 103 operating nuclear reactors in the United States now — more than any other country. Accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, cost overruns during the last buildup, and the once low and stable price of natural gas led to the three-decade freeze of the U.S. nuclear industry.

But energy legislation in the 1990s and two years ago streamlined the licensing process and gave the industry subsidies to grow. It costs between $3 billion and $4 billion to build a plant now.

The United States hasn’t licensed a new nuclear plant since 1978, so coal and natural gas combined have a majority stake in electricity production. The growing clamor to address climate change has led some states, and possibly in the future the federal government, to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. That wouldn’t affect nuclear’s pricing but could make it more competitive with polluters like coal, a main target of such measures.

As the global industry prepares to increase the number of nuclear plants, supporters in this country have become more visible, and CASE is only one of the players.

“It seems like new and varied groups are coming out in support of nuclear energy just about every week,” said Scott Peterson, vice president of communications for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s trade arm in some form or name since 1953 and sole funder of the CASE Coalition. The latest, Third Way, a center-left think tank, endorsed nuclear power last week.

“Others look at it from the lens of climate change, the lens of economic development in their communities … and clean, reliable and low-cost electricity,” Peterson said.

Opponents aren’t going to just step aside, though. Anti-nuclear and environmental groups alike want sources like wind, solar and other renewable energy to be given the government backing nuclear has received.

“Renewable energy coupled with energy efficiency and conservation is the energy source of the 21st century,” said Paul Gunter, director of the reactor watchdog project at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

Nuclear technology has advanced over the years, bolstering plants against accidents and attacks — though not foolproof if the human hand either errs or seeks violence — and enabling more efficient electricity production. And the United States is far from an answer for storing or disposing nuclear waste.

“None of the questions have been answered,” Gunter said of the nuclear opposition’s concerns. “It’s fair to say: ‘Let’s take another look.’ But when you look, nothing has really changed.”

Whitman says she thinks other energy sources are important — though she doubts the role renewables can play and says coal needs to be cleaned up but is too big a player now to go away — in weaning the country from the foreign oil that makes up 60 percent of U.S. consumption.

“Nuclear can certainly help us reduce that foreign dependence,” she said.

And, I’m not about to canonize Gore et al. Gore had plenty of chances to do something about it – he famously stood by as Bill Clinton resumed old growth logging, yet now he wants to . What has he and Maurice Stroing (google him)done? Well, Al formed a carbon trading firm (selling CO2 indulgences)and has made a bunch of money. He produced a movie andmade a lot of money. He wrote (or at least has his named attached) a book and made a lot of money. And, yes, Gore has always been an apologist for Nuclear power and hydro dams, as was his dad – he was “a Senator’s son” and assumed his father’s mantle as Senator from the TVA.

On the other hand, at one time ALL the world’s scientists agreed that the Sun revolved around the Earth. I never take anything for dogma just because many others are doing so.

So, I’m into reducing carbon-emitting activities, for sure, as most of them are harmful in other ways, as well. Another reason to do so is that all these activities also degrade habitats (for humans as well as other species) – a serious injury to Earth (like those copper Prius engines) even if our CO2 contribution to warming ends up being neglible.

And, oh yes, I also distrust industry-paid scientists and PR flacks. Josh is correct to be skeptical of their input. Cockburn may be wrong, but at least he’s independent.

Your comment seems to be an attempt to stiffle debate.
Shutting down discussion simply leads to dogmatic nonsense.

“Why are there so many apologists for global capitalism posting here? Don’t you understand that this is suppossed to be a forum for progressives?”

This is not an ideological issue. If Chavez sells petroleum, does that make him a global capitalist? Should this forum be limited to “progressives” that hew to the foundation funded neo-liberal rhetoric? I thought this forum was for dissidents. I would suggest that you take a look at the interview by the Socialist Worker’s Maas posted yesterday at DV.

It’s simply not going to happen. Even if solar and wind are competitive in cost, they simply can’t replace the amount of energy we consume from carbon sources. Sure we could drastically cut back consumption, but that’s not realistic I’m afraid. It does look like all of the proposed taxes and cap and trade schemes are just designed to make nuclear competitive. Don’t hold your breath waiting for renewables.

By the way, Jim, it can get a whole lot worse than Chernbyl.

Check out this UPI report:

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/64019.html

Analysis: Nuclear resurrection on horizon

By ROSALIE WESTENSKOW After a long lapse in growth, the U.S. nuclear power industry seems ripe for revival, particularly as the simmering climate-change debate reaches a boil.

More than 30 nuclear power plant proposals are in the approval process, and in early March the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorized the first new site in 30 years that could potentially host a nuclear power reactor.

Amid the controversy of capping carbon emissions, many of the technology’s proponents push nuclear as the only viable alternative to fossil fuels, especially when faced with the increasing demand for energy.

In the past three decades the U.S. population grew 40 percent, while energy demand surged 47 percent. Within the next 25 years experts predict energy consumption will increase 34 percent, while production grows 27 percent.

“When you look at projected growth and where we are today, you get the feeling we need to be do something besides standing still,” Christine Todd Whitman, co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition and former New Jersey governor, said at a CASEnergy-sponsored event Tuesday. “Conservation alone will not supply the energy needed.” Neither will renewable energy sources, such as hydroelectric, wind, solar or geothermal, others say.

“Renewables have to be a big part of the picture, but in our world today, with the exception of hydroelectric, only half a percent of our nation’s energy is coming from renewables,” said Patrick Moore, CASEnergy co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace. “If we are really going to make a serious dent in fossil fuel consumption, nuclear has to be part of the mix. … Otherwise there’s no hope of decreasing fossil fuel consumption.” Currently, fossil fuels provide 85 percent of the world’s energy, nuclear power constitutes 7 percent, hydroelectric power another 7 percent and the remaining 1 percent comes from a mix of renewable energy sources, according to most estimates. Despite hydroelectricity’s relatively high contribution to the mix, Moore and others argue it has nearly reached its potential in most countries and cannot provide the large-scale energy production needed to replace coal.

While the initial cost of a nuclear power plant exceeds that of a coal plant, if the current energy dichotomy stays stagnant and fossil-fuel prices continue to rise, American businesses may find nuclear power more economically attractive.

“As the prices of natural gas rise, so do the costs of doing business in the U.S.,” said Keith McCoy, vice president of energy and resource policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. Soaring energy costs have driven companies to set up shop elsewhere, causing 3 million lost jobs in the country, NAM estimates.

And while a carbon tax or cap on emissions might be environmentally counteractive if it increases the business emigration rate, encouraging nuclear power development could entice companies to stay and clean up the atmosphere at the same time.

“The nuclear power industry needs a victory in the United States,” McCoy said. Although the U.S. nuclear rebirth is progressing slowly, officials have responded on several levels with pro-nuclear policies.

Under President Bush’s fiscal 2008 budget, the Office of Nuclear Energy receives a 38-percent boost in spending, or an extra $875 million. Several legislators have nudged the nation to catch up with the liberal nuclear power policies in many other countries and advocate its use.

One appealing aspect of the technology to Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., is its potential to decrease dependence on foreign oil.

“(Our energy supply) aught to be homegrown and American-owned,” said Clyburn, majority whip. Another legislative proponent of nuclear power, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., actually published a book on the subject, “A Brighter Tomorrow: Fulfilling the Promise of Nuclear Energy.” Domenici sponsored the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that established several incentives to invest in nuclear power, including $500 million of risk insurance for the first two power plants. “We now have 30 new power plant applications at one stage or another and before this act we had none — zero — for a period of 27 years,” Domenici told UPI. What we ‘ re doing right now is watching the process unfold.” The technology has gained greater acceptability in many circles. For instance, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change pointed to nuclear power as a possible path toward decreasing greenhouse-gas emissions in a report released earlier this month.

“It’s less controversial now than it was,” said Matthew Letourneau, Domenici ‘ s spokesman. “But that doesn’t mean everyone likes it.” Nuclear waste raises concerns for many, including Mark Brownstein, managing director of business partnerships for Environmental Defense, a non-profit environmental organization.

“It’s foolish to move forward with a nuclear reactor if you haven’t addressed what to do with the waste that’s left over,” Brownstein said at Tuesday ‘ s conference. Safety has also been an issue, particularly as power plants pop up around the globe.

“What happens as this technology becomes more common in the rest of the world?” Brownstein asked. “We have to be really concerned about how this technology gets commercialized in the developing world.”